- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Allen3 talk 01:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Nominator has failed to provide required QPQ review after one month
Sybil Plumlee
edit- ... that pioneering policewoman Sybil Plumlee was the oldest living former member of the Portland Police Bureau before her death in 2012?
- Comment: If this DYK hook is not applicable to International Women's Day, please move to the February 8 expansion section. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Another Believer (talk). Self nom at 18:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Nominator has at least five DYK credits and therefore needs to do a quid pro quo review - or indicate here what they reviewed.
Article is new enough (created February 7) and long enough. In my opinion all the paragraphs of the intro after the first are superfluous; they summarize the article in detail; removing them would not take the article prose below the minimum length. The article is adequately referenced, clearly and neutrally written; I modified two sentences that seemed misleading or slightly inaccurate in detail. However, there was some close paraphrasing; I edited to take the article wording further from the source. And I am unable to find the sentence quoted from Plumlee about the Women's Protective Service in the cited book, A Municipal Mother using GoogleBooks; has a word been changed without bracketing, or an ellipsis been omitted? No deal-breakers here, and I agree with this going in the special section for International Women's Day - the only hold-up from my perspective is the QPQ. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your improvements to the article. No changes were made to Plumlee's quote in the book you mentioned, though I agree it does read strangely. I am not sure why the quote cannot be read at this time... does Google Books change which pages are shown in snippet views? I am quite certain I copied the quote correctly at the time I constructed the article. Please let me know if this needs to be addressed further. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome :-) I didn't mean that the wording was odd, just that I was surprised I couldn't find it; your link just goes to the cover. It may be on a page that is not viewable in the preview, but usually in such cases I can get GoogleBooks to admit the wording exists in the book by typing in a part of the quote; here I get no hits even going back and googling the title of the book plus a keyword from the quote. Probably just them being stroppy, but if you have a URL for a snippet view that has part of the quote visible in the window, it would be nice if you substituted in that as the URL. However, as I said, there are no issues holding this one up other than the quid pro quo review. It's quite all right to do that after nominating the article, but you will need to note here what you've reviewed when you've done it. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- With International Women's Day upon us, I realized this article had not been reviewed, so I tackled it. Length and dates are fine, and the article is well-supported by footnotes to sources. The hook fact is in the article and is supported by sources. Unfortunately, I found that the article is rather closely paraphrased from the various cited sources. I made some edits to reduce the similarity of wording, but there's more here than I'm able to deal with. Additionally, some of the content is rather trivial -- more appropriate for the newspaper obituaries it cites than for an encyclopedia article. Articles needs some fixin' before it can go to the main page. --Orlady (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh dear, I didn't find the close paraphrasing :-( But let me repeat that this is also waiting for the editor to report a quid pro quo review. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)